Agenda item

To hear questions (if any) from councillors of which due notice has been given.

(1)         Councillor Bob McShee asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor Caroline Reeves, the following question:

 

“Now that Highways England (HE) have commenced the A3 improvements near the University interchange, I would ask the Leader of the Council if Guildford Borough Council can put pressure on HE to remove ‘Deadly Junction’ the Beechcroft Drive/A3 Junction

 

I recently went on a tour of the University of Surrey and asked a member of their staff about this junction and was told that the University had agreed some years ago to join Beechcroft Drive to an access road on the University’s land.

 

As the University is willing to co-operate to remove this unsafe junction, I enquire if the Council can liaise with HE and the University to resolve this long outstanding safety issue.”

 

The Leader of the Council’s response was as follows:

 

“The Council has been liaising with Highways England, its predecessor the Highways Agency, Surrey County Council, Anne Milton MP, the University of Surrey and the Beechcroft Drive Residents Association over a number of years with respect to the potential closure of the Beechcroft Drive junction with the A3 and the provision of an alternative access for vehicles.

 

In 2015, Guildford Borough Council commissioned consultants to prepare outline highway design options and cost estimates for providing an alternative access to Beechcroft Drive (a private road). The options involved the improvement and/or diversion of the farm track which links Beechcroft Drive to the private network of roads on the University of Surrey’s Manor Park campus. This would then allow onward motorised vehicle travel to Egerton Road (a road forming part of Surrey County Council’s Local Road Network) via Gill Avenue (also a private road, which is controlled by the Royal Surrey County Hospital). These options would, if realised, have allowed for the closure of the Beechcroft Drive junction to the A3 Guildford bypass.

 

These highway design options have been considered in a number of meetings and conversations over several years with representatives of Highways England, Surrey County Council, the MP, the University, and the Beechcroft Drive Residents Association.

 

As of March 2019, Highways England has advised that it will not be providing an alternative access. We understand that Highways England would, however, consider options for facilitating a joint project.

 

The key stumbling block at the present time is the significant funding that would be required to provide for the alternative access and a commuted sum for its future maintenance.”

 

Councillor Caroline Reeves

Leader of the Council

 

Arising from a supplementary question, the Leader indicated that she could not give the actual figure in respect of the significant funding referred to in her answer, but agreed that this junction was particularly dangerous.  Considerable time had been spent trying to resolve the issue but unfortunately funding from Highways England and Surrey County Highways had been withdrawn. The Leader indicated that the Council should try to ensure that any planning applications that might come forward could find a way of creating this much needed road for residents at Beechcroft Drive.

 

A further question asked the Leader to reconsider how best to move forward in respect of finding a solution to this issue given that the University had insisted on any new access road to Beechcroft Drive should be wide enough for buses and two lanes, rather than a simple track as required by the residents.  The Leader stated that Highways England had insisted on the high specification for the road, but as there currently were no sources of funding for its construction, the project could not be taken forward. 

 

(2)         Councillor Bob McShee asked the Lead Councillor for Major Projects, Councillor John Rigg, the following question:

 

“Could the Lead Councillor for Major Projects please provide an update on the funding strategy in respect of the Weyside Urban Village project?”

 

The Lead Councillor’s response was as follows:

 

“The funding strategy for the Weyside Urban Village project is as outlined at the two Financial Briefing sessions for all councillors, which were held on 7 August and 4 September 2019. A copy of the presentation was subsequently emailed to all councillors.

 

Grant applications have been made to the Housing Infrastructure Fund and the M3 LEP for £52.3m and £7.5m respectively. The Business Case sets out a base case whereby project costs are funded by plot sale land receipts”.

 

Councillor John Rigg

Lead Councillor for Major Projects 

 

(3)         Councillor Ramsey Nagaty asked the Lead Councillor for Planning, Regeneration, and Housing Delivery, Councillor Jan Harwood, the following question:

 

“Can the Lead Councillor for Planning, Regeneration, and Housing Delivery please comment on the summary below, extracted from Guildford Borough Council data included in the approved Local Plan and public documents since that date.

 

In particular, please can he:

 

a)     Provide updated information on the latest estimates (estimates are the highlighted figures, which are also flagged via footnotes), so that the net oversupply within the Local plan can be quantified?  By our estimates, Guildford is building 70% more homes than it needs, all on green fields, which is an environmental disaster.  None of this is needed, as set out in the summary below.

 

b)     Explain why the Brownfield review that was agreed on the last full Council meeting has not yet been started, given that relatively little brownfield land supply could prevent the need to build on any greenfield sites at all, including on the countryside beyond the Green Belt in Ash and Tongham?

 

Summary showing systemic oversupply by Guildford, including unnecessary use of green field sites

Estimates are highlighted for comment.

 

Commitments as at 1.4.2018 (18 months ago)[1]	p25 LP	3675**
Local authority sites not allocated	p25 LP	620
Guildford including SARP (Slyfield)	p26 LP	1399
Guildford town centre	p26 LP	863
Within villages	p26 LP	154
Ash & Tongham urban area	p25 LP	44
Previously developed land in the Green Belt	p26 LP	195
GBC estimate for windfalls (NOTE – low!)	p25 LP	750
Site approved but omitted from local plan subtotals – Bell & Colvill site		40
Subtotal per Local Plan of approved land in settlements		7740
Amendments to this subtotal: Slyfield – understatement of housing number compared to application to HMG –all GBC numbers		101
Student homes – at date of local plan: 2,100 student units with existing planning permission divided by 3 to give home equivalents as at 1.4.18[2]		700
New student planning permissions approved as windfalls in planning committee since 1.4.18 (underestimate?)[3]		290**
Existing planning permissions and urban sites as identified by GBC		8841
Further planning permissions and completions since 1/4/18		500[4]**
THIS IS AN ESTIMATE - number to be confirmed
		9341
Incremental historic windfalls compared to planning allocations [underestimate?]		200[5]**
Anticipated future incremental windfalls		500[6]
Total scope for urban sites		10041
Required capacity from urban brownfield		637
LOW ESTIMATE - see below for illustration of supply
Total requirement met without use of Green Belt land		10678
It can be seen that the total approved target requirement for homes within the borough of Guildford could hypothetically be met by finding 637 homes on urban brownfield sites in addition to sites in the urban area and on previously developed land. There is no need for any greenfield sites at all, and certainly no sites on green belt land.   This need for 637 homes could, hypothetically, be met as follows:
Urban supply capacity NOT included in Local Plan could be (illustrative, pending brownfield review/Masterplan):
North Street - additional homes per GBC estimate		400
Debenhams - estimate of additional homes per anecdotal comment		200
Walnut Tree Close/Woodbridge Meadows - estimate		400**
IE urban area can meet shortfall re housing need		800
At the time of the Examination in Public, it was clear already that there had not been a brownfield appraisal in relation to sites which could and should be considered for the plan, nor was the plan updated for the acknowledged revision of sites at North Street.
No need has been demonstrated for ANY release of Green Belt land either by insetting villages, development around villages or strategic sites. The excess supply, all of which attacks Green Belt land, can be expressed as follows:
Gosden Hill		1700
Blackwell Farm		1500
Keens Lane (planning permission now granted for 141 homes and 70 care home places)		150
Former Wisley Airfield		2000
Development around villages		945
Land inset in villages		252
Net oversupply		6547
Percentage oversupply using Green Belt land		61.31%
Add in countryside beyond the Green Belt (Ash & Tongham)		885
Building on green field sites		7432
Percentage oversupply using green field sites		69.60%
i.e. we are building approximately 70% too many homes, all of which are on green fields.  This is in breach of our undertaking to reduce our carbon footprint.

Note: Keens Lane has now been granted planning permission, unfortunately, but it is indicative of the inappropriate and planned Green Belt utilisation which was not required or justified in preparing the original plan. 

 

In fact, that component now represents a further determined supply of 141 homes and 70 care home places, so the shortfall relative to extant planning permissions and urban supply, and the justification for further Green Belt incursion, is still less.

 

Similarly, Tannery Lane has now obtained planning consent for 75 homes (compared to 60, an uplift of 25%), and unless overturned it too will represent a significant oversupply. Note in that decision that there was a 25% uplift compared to the original site allocation, so the 70% oversupply indicated above could be in fact even higher – 25% uplift on 70% would give an overall uplift of 87.5% compared to the objectively assessed housing target, which already meets all of Guildford’s objectively assessed housing need.

 

There is a requirement to demonstrate a 5-year land supply. However, this could have been easily demonstrated by the Planning department within existing urban sites and planning permissions since these substantially already exceed the annual requirement x 5 plus a buffer”.

 

The Lead Councillor’s response was as follows:

 

“In response to part a) of Councillor Nagaty’s question, planning officers have previously responded that the information will be shared with him as soon as it is available. It is considered to be important that finalised data, which informs the Council’s housing supply position is not released in a piecemeal manner and that it is rigorously checked by officers prior to publication. One of the key reasons for this rigour is to ensure that the data forming the basis for the Council claiming a 5-year housing land supply is robust and can be relied on as a basis to refuse inappropriate applications and defend planning appeals, including on green belt sites, where claims may be made to the contrary.

 

The Council does not update the 5-year housing land supply on a day to day or week to week basis.  The Council’s 5-year supply is currently set at the figure the Inspector used in his report at 5.93 years of supply until 31 October 2019.  After this date the plan is no longer considered to be ‘recently adopted’ and officers are working on the latest figure based on completions and permissions and other data informing the deliverability of sites post the information provided at the examination.  Officers anticipate having information by mid-October and would then share with Lead councillors prior to publishing.  Prior to this, we will ensure that we review the figures provided by Councillor Nagaty relevant to our housing supply position and check for any discrepancies.     

 

In terms of the summary provided by Councillor Nagaty, including the statement that headroom (characterised as ‘oversupply’ in the summary) above the housing requirement is not needed, without comprehensively addressing the claim or figures provided, it is important to bear in mind the following:

 

·        The Local Plan has been subject to thorough examination, which considered whether exceptional circumstances were in place to justify the release of green belt land. This occurred in the context of headroom in the Plan’s housing supply. The reasons provided by the Planning Inspector to justify his conclusions in this regard are included in his report.

·        The Local Plan process provided the opportunity to put forward deliverable brownfield sites. None were provided to the satisfaction of the Inspector.

·        Greenfield / former green belt sites will contribute significantly to delivery in the first 5 years of the plan and the prospects of maintaining a robust rolling 5-year housing land supply. This includes more than 1,600 (affordable and market) homes that are characterised as “excess supply” in the summary. Concurrently, much of the supply included on urban and brownfield sites as shown in the summary is not considered  deliverable in years 1-5 of the Plan.

·        The figures provided only look at overall supply across the plan period – it does not attempt to look at the supply of homes necessary to demonstrate a five-year supply of homes. The Council is required to demonstrate a rolling five-year housing land supply. The number of homes necessary to meet this must address the shortfall that has accrued since the start of the plan period and include a 20% buffer. Without a five-year supply of housing, relevant Local Plan policies will be considered out of date and the Council will be vulnerable to alternative speculative development, including in Green Belt locations. Much of the supply that the summary table includes is not going to be delivered within the first five years. It is therefore misleading to concentrate simply on overall supply when it is the delivery of homes within this rolling five-year period that is the most important factor to consider in determining whether the plan is robust and can remain up to date.

·        It is necessary to avoid counting housing supply beyond the plan period (as it appears has occurred in the summary with regard to the ‘understatement of housing’ relating to Slyfield) in determining supply.

·        It is necessary to ensure that sites included in the Council’s housing supply are deliverable and / or developable as defined within the NPPF (e.g. considering limitations on more vulnerable uses such as housing in areas of flood risk).

·        Including an altered windfall allowance as part of the Council’s housing supply from what was accepted at the time of the Local Plan would need to be justified and supported by evidence in order to stand up to scrutiny – officers are considering the position in this regard and will include any revisions in the revised Land Availability Assessment (LAA).

·        Reductions (as well as gains) in relation to anticipated housing yields need to be considered in supply calculations based on new evidence. Furthermore, flexibility in supply is important in the event of any future slippage in anticipated housing delivery.      

 

In response to part b) of Councillor Nagaty’s question, the current Brownfield Land Register was published in December 2018, following the first version in December 2017.

 

The Council is currently producing an updated LAA. The LAA necessarily reviews the development potential of all brownfield sites that have been submitted for assessment to the Council and it:

 

·        identifies land with potential for development for housing and employment, and other uses;

·        assesses the land's potential capacity with regard to the physical and policy contexts for the site;

·        assesses when a site is likely to be developed based on the definitions provided in the NPPF.

 

The revised LAA will be available before the end of October. Where appropriate, brownfield sites included in the LAA are also included in the Council’s Brownfield Land Register. The Register comprises a list of Previously Developed (or Brownfield) sites that have the potential to accommodate residential development and are suitable, available and achievable. Submission of sites for consideration for the Brownfield Land Register and/or Land Availability Assessment (LAA) can occur at any time during the course of the year. Officers have also undertaken desk-based exercises to identify potential brownfield sites in addition to those submitted. The full methodology will be published as an appendix to the revised LAA.  The updated Brownfield Land Register is anticipated to be published by December 2019 at the latest.”

 

Councillor Jan Harwood

Lead Councillor for Planning, Regeneration, and Housing Delivery

 

Further supplementary questions were asked enquiring as to:

 

(a)   the extent of the substantial over supply;

(b)   whether the Lead Councillor agreed or disagreed with the position in relation to the alleged over supply that this had been part of the process of the Local Plan at the examination in public and that the Inspector had insisted that it was necessary to make the local Plan adoptable;

(c)   how the lead councillor believed that the assertion that no deliverable brownfield sites were provided to the satisfaction of the inspector was actually discussed at the examination in public;

(d)   why there was no recollection at the examination in public that a Brownfield Land Register had been published in December 2018 and why it had not been made available to councillors or to the public or as part of any public consultation.

 

In response, the Lead Councillor stated that it was not a matter for him to decide the soundness of the Local Plan or to make a decision on whether the supply numbers  put forward were robust as that was the Inspector's decision, and he had made his position clear.  The Lead Councillor also confirmed that the relevant local plan documents were all available and the consultation processes were followed. 

 

(4)         Councillor John Redpath asked the Lead Councillor for Planning, Regeneration, and Housing Delivery, Councillor Jan Harwood, the following question:

 

“At the last Council meeting it was unanimously agreed to do a Town Centre Masterplan and to appoint best in class external advisers. Can the Lead Councillor for Planning, Regeneration, and Housing Delivery please confirm exact progress made, when we can see the draft brief to external consultants and can a target date for their appointment be supplied on which the Council can rely?”

 

The Lead Councillor’s response was as follows:

 

“I believe that the answers to Councillor Redpath’s question were covered in a detailed response to a question raised by Councillor Angela Gunning at the Council meeting on 23 July 2019 (see Minute CO25: pages 4 – 6 of the Council agenda), save for an indication of progress since what was then reported under “What is the timetable?” (point 3 of Councillor Gunning’s question).

 

In this regard, the following progress is noted:

·        Inception meeting with service provider for initial engagement conducted

·        Stakeholder engagement (scoping survey) initiated – October 2019”

 

Councillor Jan Harwood

Lead Councillor for Planning, Regeneration, and Housing Delivery  

 

Further supplementary questions were asked enquiring as to whether:

 

(a)   whether the Lead Councillor would answer the specific points regarding progress being made and to provide an estimated date when councillors can see a draft brief, and a target date for the appointment of the consultants;

(b)   whether the comprehensive draft masterplan prepared by Allies and Morrison was still being used or taken forward in any form

(c)   when councillors can expect an update on this

 

In response, the Lead Councillor stated that progress had been noted in his written response in respect of the inception meeting and stakeholder engagement.  He indicated that until the Council had consulted sufficiently and understood the parameters, it would not be appropriate to set a briefing and that he would be working with Councillor Rigg to progress the matter as expeditiously as possible.

 

The Lead Councillor indicated that there were many aspects of the Allies and Morrison master plan that were useful and could be utilised it. The focus was now on deliverability.

 

The Lead Councillor for Major Projects stated that he hoped that the Town Centre Master Plan would take the best of the plans previously prepared by Allies and Morrison, the Guildford Vision Group, and the Council. There were many things which had not been addressed in previous plans, for example transport infrastructure, congestion, pollution, and opening up the riverside.   The Council would be seeking to appoint best in class masterplanners with a view to delivering a plan, which would identify sites which could be brought forward within months of adoption.